Tatume, you'll get no argument from me on private property rights. As a matter of fact, if you look at the preceding the only two who have taken sides, Mickey and I, have sided with the those who want to build the plant.

It's the press treatment that catches my eye.

Because hunters are involved, according to the press it's rich vs. poor.

I never see it expressed that way when it's wealthy environmentalists destroying rural economies.

To cite one specific example, I recall reading a U.S. Forest Service study on mountain lions in the Sierra Nevada in California. Essentially, the overabundance of mountain lions depressed game populations. The overabundance of mountain lions was only possible due to the fact that they could also kill and eat stock. And as long as California banned hunting of mountain lions, the negative effects on both the native game populations and ranchers would continue.

On the other hand, permitting the hunting of mountain lions would provide jobs and income to the local communities. California produces big black bears, and there are people who make their livings guiding clients to them. Not to mention people who benefit from providing food, lodging, and other support activities. Expanding this to include mountain lion hunting would provide further economic benefits. Not to mention the fact that if mountain lions weren't artificially depressing the numbers of blacktail and mule deer, more hunters would spend money in these areas.

Yet Hollywood celebrities and San Francisco liberals would suffer an injury to their self-esteem if they allowed this to happen. So they don't.

Yet I never hear of this as rich vs. poor. Even though that's what it is.